Book Review: J. A. Hobson.The Evolution of Modern Capitalism

Written:Written in April 1899Published:Published in May 1899 in the magazineNachalo, No. 5.

      Signed:Vl. Ilyin.

      Published according to the text in the magazine.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 4,

      pages100-104.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

J.A. Hobson.The Evolution of Modern Capitalism.Translated
	from the English. St. Petersburg, 1898. Publ. 0. N. Popova.
	Price 1 rb. 50 kop.

Hobson’sbook is, strictly speaking, not a study of the evolution of
      modern capitalism, but a series of sketches, based mainly on English data,
      dealing with the most recent industrial development. Hence, the title of
      the book is somewhat broad: the author does not touch upon agriculture at
      all and his examination of industrial economics is far from complete. Like
      the well-known writers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Hobson is a
      representative of one of the advanced trends of English social
      thought. His attitude towards “modern capitalism” is critical;
      he fully admits the necessity of replacing it by a higher form of social
      economy and treats the problem of its replacement with typically English
      reformist practicality. His conviction of the need for reform is, in the
      main, arrived at empirically, under the influence of the recent history of
      English factory legislation, of the English labour movement, of the
      activities of the English municipalities, etc. Hobson lacks well-knit and
      integral theoretical views that could serve as a basis for his reformist
      programme and elucidate specific problems of reform. He is, therefore, at
      his best when he deals with the grouping and description of the latest
      statistical and economic data. When, on the other hand, he deals with the
      general theoretical problems of political economy, he proves to be very
      weak. The Russian reader will oven find it strange to see a writer with
      such extensiveknowledge and practical aspirations deserving of full sympathy helplessly
      labouring over questions like, what is “capital,” what is the role
      of “savings,” etc. This weak side of Hobson is fully explained by
      the fact that he regards John Stuart Mill as a greater authority on
      political economy than Marx, whom he quotes once or twice but whom he
      evidently does not understand at all or does not know. One cannot but
      regret the vast amount of unproductive labour wasted by Hobson in an
      attempt to get clear on the contradictions of bourgeois and professorial
      political economy. At best he comes close to the solutions given by Marx
      long ago; at worst he borrows erroneous views that are in sharp
      contradiction to his attitude towards “modern capitalism.”  The most
      unfortunate chapter in his book is the seventh: “Machinery and
      Industrial Depression.” In this chapter Hobson tried to analyse the
      theoretical problems of crises, of social capital and revenue in
      capitalist society, and of capitalist accumulation. Correct ideas on the
      disproportionateness of production and consumption in capitalist society
      and on the anarchic character of capitalist economy are submerged in a
      heap of scholastic arguments about “saving” (Hobson confuses
      accumulation with “saving”), amidst all sorts of Crusoeisms (suppose
      “a man working with primitive tools, discovers an
      implement... saving food,” etc.), and the like. Hobson is very fond of
      diagrams, and in most cases he uses them very ably for graphic
      illustration of his exposition. But the idea of the “mechanism of
      production” given in his diagram on page 207 (Chap. VII) can only
      elicit a smile from the reader who is at all acquaint ed with the real
      “mechanism” ofcapitalist“production.” Hobson
      here confuses production with the social system of production and evinces
      an extremely vague understanding of what capital is, what its component
      parts are, and into what classes capitalist society is necessarily
      divided. In Chapter VIII he cites interesting data on the composition of
      the population according to occupation, and on the changes in this
      composition in the course of time, but the great flaw in his theoretical
      arguments on “machinery and the demand for labour” is that he
      ignores the theory of “capitalist over population” or the
      reserve army. Among the more happily written chapters of Hobson’s book are
      those in which he examines modern towns and the position of women in
      modernindustry. Citing statistics on the growth of female labour and describing
      the extremely bad conditions under which this labour is performed, Hobson
      justly points out that the only hope of improving these conditions lies in
      the supplanting of domestic labour by factory labour, which leads to
      “closer social intercourse” and to “organisation.”
      Similarly, on the question of the significance of towns, Hobson comes
      close to Marx’s general views when he admits that the anti thesis between
      town and country contradicts the system of collectivist society. Hobson’s
      conclusions would have been much more convincing had he not ignored Marx’s
      teaching on this question too. Hobson would then, probably, have
      emphasised more clearly the historically progressive role of the cities
      and the necessity of combining agriculture with industry under the
      collectivist organisation of economy. The last chapter of Hobson’s book,
      “Civilisation and Industrial Development,” is perhaps the best. In
      this chapter the author proves by a number of very apt arguments the need
      to re form the modern industrial system along the line of expanding
      “public control” and the “socialisation of industry.” In
      evaluating Hobson’s somewhat optimistic views regarding the methods by
      which these “reforms” can be brought about, the special
      features of English history and of English life must be borne in mind: the
      high development of democracy, the absence of militarism, the enormous
      strength of the organised trade unions, the growing investment of English
      capital outside of England, which weakens the antagonism between the
      English employers and workers, etc.

Inhis well-known book on the social movement in the nineteenth century,
      Prof. W. Sombart notes among other things a “tendency towards
      unity” (title of Chapter VI), i. e., a tendency of the social
      movement of the various countries, in its various forms and shades,
      towards uniformity and along with it a tendency towards the spread of the
      ideas of Marxism. In regard to England Sombart sees this tendency in the
      fact that the English trade unions are increasingly abandoning “the
      purely Manchester standpoint.” In regard to Hobson’s book we can say that
      under pressure of the demands of life, which is increasingly corroborating
      Marx’s “prognosis,” progressive English writers are beginning torealise the unsoundness of traditional bourgeois political economy and,
      freeing themselves from its prejudices, are involuntarily approaching
      Marxism.

Thetranslation of Hobson’s book has substantial short comings.